On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:54:55AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:> > On Tue, March 20, 2012 12:20 am, Shawn Guo wrote:> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 08:38:26PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:> >> This has a couple of advantages:> >> * Completely hides struct clk from many clock platform drivers and> >> static> >> clock initialization code.> >> * Simplifies the generic clk_register() function and allows adding> >> optional> >> fields in the future without modifying the function signature.> >> * Allows for simpler static initialization of clocks on all platforms by> >> removing the need for forward delcarations.> >> * Halves the number of symbols added for each static clock> >> initialization.> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>> >> > I agree this is a reasonable move. But while you simplify the interface> > of clk_register(), why not making a further step to simplify the> > following interfaces simple too?> >> > struct clk *clk_register_fixed_rate(struct device *dev, const char *name,> > const char *parent_name, unsigned long flags,> > unsigned long fixed_rate);> > struct clk *clk_register_gate(struct device *dev, const char *name,> > const char *parent_name, unsigned long flags,> > void __iomem *reg, u8 bit_idx,> > u8 clk_gate_flags, spinlock_t *lock);> > struct clk *clk_register_divider(struct device *dev, const char *name,> > const char *parent_name, unsigned long flags,> > void __iomem *reg, u8 shift, u8 width,> > u8 clk_divider_flags, spinlock_t *lock);> > struct clk *clk_register_mux(struct device *dev, const char *name,> > char **parent_names, u8 num_parents, unsigned long flags,> > void __iomem *reg, u8 shift, u8 width,> > u8 clk_mux_flags, spinlock_t *lock);> > If you simplify those functions further. They would just become> clk_register(). I'm not sure I see a value in them in at that point or> even in their current form. But if others see (I'm guessing since they> acked or didn't nack it), I'm not going to ask to remove them. If everyone> agrees that we should just remove them, I would be glad to.> > It's arguable that these functions for the common hardware types saves the> need to deal with the kalloc in every platform driver. But it's not clear> to me where they would get these parameters in the first place. Most> likely form some sort of static array. At which point, it might as well be> a static array of pointers to clk_gated.hw, clk_fixed_rate.hw, etc instead> of a platform specific struct to hold these initializers.

I am using these functions and don't need a static array, I just callthe functions with the desired parameters.

Overall the clock framework was written in a way that we have to exposeas little information about the internally used structs as necessary. Itseems your patches are pulling in the opposite direction now.